That's one question lingering after Lookout Security last month detailed an insidious hack attack against Google Glass: Just by getting Glass to "see" a malicious QR code, an attacker could force a connection to a malicious Wi-Fi or Bluetooth connection, then eavesdrop on all communications. Admittedly, the attack wouldn't have triggered a countdown to global doom, but it did highlight the automated, promiscuous network-connecting habits of mobile devices, Glass included.

Therein lies a problem with wearable computing devices: They lack either physical or virtual keyboards, and thus require a relatively greater degree of automation than your average Android device or iPhone. With that automation, however, comes the risk that the device may automatically do something bad, from either an information security or privacy perspective.

In some respects, this is a good problem for the wearable computing field to have. For years, it was hobbled by awkward input mechanisms -- corded keyboards, joysticks, trackballs. But in this age of small, high-speed processors, voice recognition and relatively ubiquitous Internet connectivity, the release of Google Glass inaugurated people literally being able to tell their glasses what to do.

Unfortunately, as the Glass QR vulnerability -- patched by Google in June -- illustrates, wearable computing faces still some tricky security and privacy questions. Furthermore, useful solutions to these problems may not yet be on hand.

One problem is user authentication. For starters, unlike a smartphone, Google Glass doesn't offer access restrictions based on passwords or a PIN. That means a thief could easily access any Google account tied to a stolen device, warns InformationWeek columnist Jerry Irvine, who's a member of the National Cyber Security Task Force. Cue the need for restricting what these "bring your own" (BYOD) devices can do, and when. "If an organization doesn't have a BYOD strategy, the emergence of Glass can be a compelling argument to get one in place," said Irvine, who's also the CIO of Prescient Solutions.

Security managers will have many more options when such devices get rolled out by the IT department and tied to being used in specific environments. For example, Duncan Stewart, a research director at Deloitte, told the BBC that wearable computers could be especially useful for workers in environments that don't currently allow for smartphone use. "Someone driving a forklift in a warehouse can't use a PC or smartphone because they will crash into someone," Stewart said. "But imagine if they can drive around and be able to pinpoint a pallet and then the particular box they need on that pallet."

There are numerous security risks that could be blocked outright in that scenario. "There's a difference between a general use computer and a specialty use computer," Bob Rosenberg, CTO of startup facilities management service BluQRux, said in a phone interview. The latter, notably, can by heavily locked down, for example to only allow a white list of approved apps to be installed, and to block access to any website except for a preapproved list.

With all new technology, there are always going to be security risks. With all technology its a constant battle between hackers and the security measures being put up to prevent these hackers. It has always been a back and forth, with every new security measure just proving to be temporary barriers as hackers find new ways around all measures. I'm not saying we shouldn't be taking these concerns seriously, but even if we address current security concerns, there will be more to come.

Seldom much of a though of the downsides. You've gotta game the system yourself and think about how people will attack it BEFORE you dump it on the unsuspecting masses. You won't catch everything, but at least you will stop some of the problems before they happen.

I don't think this issue has anything to do with glass, it is about as secure as any other not well thought out computing device. The real issue in this example is the QR code. It is easier to use than typing in a URL, but anyone who uses a QR code blindly trusts some dots in a pattern. With a URL there is a reasonably good chance to see if that URL matches the expected resource.QR codes are big, they are ugly, and they are dangerous. Don't use them and don't put them anywhere. It is, same as glass, another devices that was not well thought out. Especially not from a security perspective.

I think that wearable tech will be the future of mobile devices. Maybe it will take 5-10 years, but the technology of size and power are moving in that direction. It still won't change the basic issues currently challenging BYOD and enterprise communication, but I bet these wearable will still need data protection and will have some form of text messaging which will still need security apps like Tigertext to protect and secure that data incase the wearable device is left in the gym locker room or taken from the user.

Most enterprises are using threat intel services, but many are still figuring out how to use the data they're collecting. In this Dark Reading survey we give you a look at what they're doing today - and where they hope to go.

A vulnerability in DB Manager version 3.0.1.0 and previous and PerformA version 3.0.0.0 and previous allows an authorized user with access to a privileged account on a BD Kiestra system (Kiestra TLA, Kiestra WCA, and InoqulA+ specimen processor) to issue SQL commands, which may result in data corrup...

A vulnerability in ReadA version 1.1.0.2 and previous allows an authorized user with access to a privileged account on a BD Kiestra system (Kiestra TLA, Kiestra WCA, and InoqulA+ specimen processor) to issue SQL commands, which may result in loss or corruption of data.

Stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the &quot;Site Name&quot; field found in the &quot;site&quot; tab under configurations in ClipperCMS 1.3.3 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted site name to the manager/processors/save_settings.processor.php f...

In Apache Batik 1.x before 1.10, when deserializing subclass of `AbstractDocument`, the class takes a string from the inputStream as the class name which then use it to call the no-arg constructor of the class. Fix was to check the class type before calling newInstance in deserialization.

Some Huawei smart phones with the versions before Berlin-L21HNC185B381; the versions before Prague-AL00AC00B223; the versions before Prague-AL00BC00B223; the versions before Prague-AL00CC00B223; the versions before Prague-L31C432B208; the versions before Prague-TL00AC01B223; the versions before Prag...